Clement Tahershamsi @Clementulus@qoto.org

@chris @freemo
Hello good sirs. You did not ask for my two cents but I feel compelled to point out that the argument you used to draw an equivence between US actions in the middle east and other atrocities is full of western conceit. It is common for americans to believe that everything of import that ever happened in the world since the declaration of independence was somehow due to their actions. It is true that naive and self-interested actions by america in that region have greatly exacerbated existing conflicts; but to think that the whole middle east would be dancing Sufis if not for big-bad america is rather preposterous.
The reason that the holocaust, pol pot and the cultural revolution are considered particularly bad is because they were pepetuated by a specific group clearly over and on top of whatever violence was already endemic to the area. WW2 itself was clearly more than a single nation or person's fault but the holocaust was completely in excess of any expected wartime killing.
Again, this does not mean that america is innocent of wrongdoing in that region, only that they are not nearly the only factor at play.

@freemo The point is not really moot. Sure anyone could move into the wilderness and try to live a self sufficient lifestyle for almost no cost (who even has the skills to do that nowadays anyway?) Or move somewhere with no jobs or opportunities and try to scrape by on welfare or whatever meager opportunities are there. But thats not what people want, they want to be in or near cities where they can pursue a profession and enjoy at least the basic amenities and the fact is that it was much easier for working-class people to do just that as far back as the 50s, even before.

@freemo but im not comparing to 70+ years ago, im comparing to less than 20 years ago where houses that were brand new then have more than doubled in price since then with very little done in terms of renovation. My point is that its not the materials in the dwelling that have driven increased cost of housing, which was your original post, but rather an increased demand for limited supply of land.

@freemo but if most working class people cant afford a 0.25 acre plot to plop a house on and all the available supply is in use, rental or otherwise, it's not hard to see why most young people will laugh in your face when you tell them how much wealth is in a modern home, because they are literally sleeping in their car.

@freemo speaking for the canadian market, while there is some merit to the suggestion that we simply buy more stuff along with our houses than we used to this accounts for very little of the increased cost in most areas. The vast amount of the increase is in the cost of land because increased demand for living space. For instance, a half acre plot of land near where I live is now going for around 275 000$ with no house on it at all. An identical plot right next door with a brand new bungalow on it back in the 90s would have been around 120 000$.

@freemo Nature created animals that fulfil their needs by killing each other, sometimes their own young. They are driven to do so by their instincts. Humans are not without instinicts and desires that would cause harm to others if acted upon. Nature clearly demonstrates that it cares not for happiness only survival of the fittest. If nature came up with the idea of maximizing happiness across all species, why would it make violent creatures (including humans)

@freemo who decided what "objective good and evil" are and why should we listen to them? What is the source of their authority?

@freemo But you do see that that framework for an ethic is itself a subjective choice? Because the weight you give to those various factors changes the morals drastically. If Thanos appeared tomorrow and said that the most intelligent supercomputer in the galaxy predicted that humanity would be extinguished in 1000 years but if he instanly vaporizes all but 1000 select individuals that we would regain our population and humanity would then go on to thrive for 100 000 years, he could claim the moral right to do so using a utilitarian ethic by citing all the immense happiness that the unborn trillions would be denied if he allowed the current billions to keep on living. Also, it is actually not entirely logical to posit that happiness could be proven to be objective if a hypothetical machine existed to measure it properly (you can't prove something based on a hypothetical).

@freemo its true that your choice of morals will depend on your ethical framework and how you interpret it, but that itself is a choice. you reference utilitarianism as what you would choose but even within that ethic there is huge margin for interpretation. How do you measure relative happiness / suffering? There are many things that would make me happy that other people dont care about while many things I can easily tolerate other people find insufferable; not to mention state of mind: should we brave-new-world ourselves into chemical bliss so that we can all be maximally happy? Also are we considering only currently living persons or do we consider future generations as well? If so, how many? Do we include only our own species, all species or only some arbitrary number of them? I dont expect you to answer all those questions, I was just demonstrating that even a single ethical standpoint could yeild wildly different morals, none of which are "objective" as you correctly point out.
Which comes back to why I mention Beauty, because the experience of beauty, while subjective, provides the best overall guiding principle for determinig ethical frameworks and their moral outcomes; I do find that when you seriously discuss with people what is beautiful, humans seem to have rather similar experiences of it which is why when someone exemplifies a beautifully lived life, other people are more likely to change their outlook to match that one rather than another.

@freemo I am also talking about morals. We always choose what our morals are. For instance, at one time, most people in our society found it morally wrong to have sex outside of wedlock but many nowadays no longer see this as immoral; following that thread though, many people even back then would *say* that they believed that extra-marital sex was immoral so that they would be seen as a moral person by the rest of their society; but they would still practice it in secret. Of those that did it in secret, some would repent their actions, believing they had made a mistake and therefore still believe it immoral even though they did it; but others simply did not think it wrong at all and so to them it was clearly not immoral. Same can be applied to any moral question: different people will see different things as moral / immoral and they will not necessarily be forthright about their beliefs, depending on prevailing social attitudes.
Nothing humans can come up with can be considered "objectively moral" since no one is an objective observer of the universe. The closest we could come would be something like "divinely moral" by believing that the universe has a divine purpose which would necessitate certain behaviors to fulfil that purpose. How to discover that purpose would be a spiritual question.

@freemo all motives are based on subjective criteria. Justification for any action is ultimately a statement about what sort of reality you believe we should live in. Sartre writes about freedom causing anguish for this very reason. Killers always justify their actions in terms of "doing what is right or necessary" and real world conflicts are usually spoken about as good vs evil, light vs dark, true-human vs. Sub-human. Ultimately it is all statements about Beauty; the beautifull reality is one where light triumphs over the dark, where good has overcome evil, where the less-than-humans (read: terrorists) are erradicated and only the pure (read: us and ours) are all that remain. If you were to think that way you would be joining probably the majority of people as they currently view the world (at least consciously). I do think, however, that with a little serious reflection, most people would realize that the reality where life is sacred is far more beautiful, but to sustain that belief in a conflict ridden world is another matter altogether.

@freemo I would add a fifth option: "because it's ugly". Meaning that to live in a reality where the willfull killing of thinking beings is justifiable is simply much less beautiful than the reality where we consider life to be sacred.

@jasonetheridge @freemo You guys might find it interesting that even in one of the original democracies, classical Athens, it was so difficult to get citizens to vote (both for policies and as jurors in legal cases) because no one wanted to take the economic hit from leaving their market stall, so much so that the leaders were forced to send slaves with a long rope covered in chalk to literally lasso citizens out of the Agora and drag them to the Pnix (where the votes happened). If you arrived covered in chalk everyone knew you had been forced to come and could shame you. It was a common joke at the time that the only citizens who consistently voted were old retirees who liked to vote for outrageous things just for the laughs.

@freemo Its a circulatory system thing. Heart not as strong and vascular system less rigid than in youth, you end up keeping more fluids in your extremities. Lots of commonly used medications for that age group can also exarcebate the swelling, especially blood pressure meds.

@andrewstroehlein Lol, the EU will fine X "6% of its revenue". In that case they will need to *give* Elon money.